The Age of the Universe

[Davian]

The subject of this thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.

Where did I imply otherwise?

The thread is about the scientific view of the universe, not my view.

Where did I imply otherwise?

Did you even read the OP.

Yes. Why do you ask?

 

[[serious]]

that is not objective evidence that proves you're not just a computer simulation designed to exhibit human like behavior. I must "believe" (accept the truth) that you are conscious like I am. The only thing you can do to show me that you are conscious is exhibit similar behaviors that I can exhibit, it's then up to me to "believe" you are conscious. Consciousness cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. God cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. At least you can agree this makes sense.

Well, I don't know that YOU aren't a computer simulation. I've checked myself for wires, so I know I'm not.

 

[Michael]

Post #562

The actions of others does nothing to excuse yours.

Oh for goodness sake....

Compared to the 'cry wolf' routine by the mainstream, you really have nothing to complain about IMO.

However, I do not see how you can claim the straw-man argument complaint for gods. You would need to first objectively establish what/which god, and define in some testable manner its exact characteristics in order to show that the argument was wrong.

I already gave you a perfectly good empirical definition.

For example, if I say that the Christian God is only a character in a book, who here can demonstrate that I am wrong?

Empirically, statistically, or "scientifically" without necessary demonstrating empirical cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation? Keep in mind that as far as cosmology theories (plural) are concerned, cause/effect relationships are almost always *assumed*.

 

[Michael]

Tell me what Einstein thought of religious beliefs in personal gods.

Apparently he didn't have a very "personal" relationship with Spinoza's concept of "God". His loss, but it hardly helps your case in terms of his openness to the basic concept.

 

[Michael]

I didn't. He offered.

I only offered to explain the various problems and assumptions involved with assigning an age to the universe. I didn't offer to stuff my beliefs down anyone's throat however. That was apparently your own strawman.

 

[Davian]

Oh for goodness sake....

Compared to the 'cry wolf' routine by the mainstream, you really have nothing to complain about IMO.

I'm okay with you being hypocritical if you are.

I already gave you a perfectly good empirical definition.

Let me know when you have a "perfectly good empirical definition" of the Christian "God" that everyone agrees upon.

Empiric<snip false dichotomy>

Do you even see yourself doing that? I'll just keep snipping them.

 

[Davian]

Apparently he didn't have a very "personal" relationship with Spinoza's concept of "God". His loss, but it hardly helps your case in terms of his openness to the basic concept.

He wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Put that in your signature.

 

[Davian]

I only offered to explain the various problems and assumptions involved with assigning an age to the universe. I didn't offer to stuff my beliefs down anyone's throat however. That was apparently your own strawman.

No, it was your own misunderstanding, which you admitted to. Try for some intellectual integrity.

 

[Michael]

I'm okay with you being hypocritical if you are.

It's actually not hypocritical to pick on their claims. They deserve some flack after all their ridiculous hype. That BICEP2 fiasco from last year was simply over the top.

Let me know when you have a "perfectly good empirical definition" of the Christian "God" that everyone agrees upon.

Why? We don't even all agree about the character and nature of the current President, so why would we agree on the topic of 'God'? Your request is illogical.

Do you even see yourself doing that? I'll just keep snipping them.

There was no false dichotomy in my response, just a few simply questions that you didn't answer. You have your own *personal* set of *empirical* requirements as it relates to the topic of God, but as I've noted, that's not even an actual "scientific' standard, it's *your own personal* standard apparently.

 

[Davian]

It's actually not hypocritical to pick on their claims.

I was referring to your predilection for the misrepresentation of others' positions.

Why? We don't even all agree about the character and nature of the current President, so why would we agree on the topic of 'God'? Your request is illogical.

If you cannot define it, and establish its characteristics, you have no basis cry 'straw-man'.

There was no false dichotomy in my response, just a few simply questions that you didn't answer.

On an unrelated subject - a dichotomy, and a false one.

You have your own *personal* set of *empirical* requirements as it relates to the topic of God, but as I've noted, that's not even an actual "scientific' standard, it's *your own personal* standard apparently.

You are welcome to take your notions to a scientific discussion site and plead your case there. Are there any that have not already banned you?

 

[Michael]

He wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Put that in your signature.

I was thinking of adding this quote instead since it relates directly to our conversation about the universe:

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Or maybe:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214

 

[Davian]

I was thinking of adding this quote instead since it relates directly to our conversation about the universe:



Or maybe:

Add them all, including the ones I posted, or none. Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Michael]

I was referring to your predilection for the misrepresentation of others' positions.

When did I do that in your opinion?

If you cannot define it,

I absolutely did physically define it for you, specifically as *everything*.

and establish its characteristics,

I already provided you with evidence of it's electrical characteristics, along with mass layouts that look *nearly identical* to current carrying intelligent structures inside of living organisms.

you have no basis cry 'straw-man'.

You're basically just handwaving at my definition without actually dealing with it. That's the big problem.

You are welcome to take your notions to a scientific discussion site and plead your case there.

Been there, done that.

Are there any that have not already banned you?

And to think that you whine about me using unethical debate practices. Sheesh. What does that have to do with *our* current conversation?

Oh I'm sure there are, but at the rate they're going with their dark matter and dark energy claims over the past couple of years, who even cares what they think? I'll bet they're even more touchy and trigger happy now than they were 8-10 years ago. Experimental physics hasn't been kind to them since they banned me at BAUT, and their galaxy mass estimates used in that 2006 lensing study were shown to be a complete joke. Their media hype last year about finding evidence of inflation in BICEP2 data blew up in their face *during* the peer review process. It also turns out that apparently their SN1A "standard candles' weren't so 'standard' after all. Its been a really tough decade for Lambda-CDM proponents. I really don't think they'd appreciate me pointing that out to them.

 

[Michael]

Add them all, including the ones I posted, or none. Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.

Then you're as guilty and as intellectually dishonest as the rest of us, so crawl down from that high horse before you hurt yourself.

 

[Davian]

When did I do that in your opinion?

Look for when I have commented on you post with this image.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

I absolutely did physically define it for you, specifically as *everything*.

I already provided you with evidence of it's electrical characteristics, along with mass layouts that look *nearly identical* to current carrying intelligent structures inside of living organisms.

Try not to switch gods mid-conversation. Stay with the Christian "God" for a moment.

You're basically just handwaving at my definition without actually dealing with it. That's the big problem.

No, you said "We don't even all agree about the character and nature of the current President, so why would we agree on the topic of 'God'?".

Not my problem.

Been there, done that.

Oh I'm sure there are

Then you should give them a try, and let me know how it goes.

 

[Davian]

Then you're as guilty and as intellectually dishonest as the rest of us

How so?

 

[sparow]

So exactly *how* then did you decide that "space expansion" has anything to do with photon redshift again?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

What is space; is it Euclidean space that has no boundaries? Is space a volume with outer limits that could expand or contract or is space that which the volume measures? Whether space has a boundary limit or not are both irrational concepts; but expansion could possibly occur in several ways; the volume could increase, the material filling the volume could be compressed leading to a big bang but space expansion is determined by red shift prophesying a receding galaxy but no expansion occurs until the galaxy crashes through the boundary of space, unless space be defined as a collection of galaxies speeding away from each other therefore expansion would be a function of definition.


I would expect that if an observed red shift (b) was observed in galaxy (a) and the observer then went to the opposite side of the galaxy and observed red shift (c), b-c=0 and the red [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would imply nothing regarding expansion.

 

[sparow]

Why would hydrogen or oxygen have a different spectrum elsewhere in the universe? These spectra are the product of the fundamental forces in physics. You would have to change the strong, weak, and electrical forces to get different spectra.

http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr2/en/proj/advanced/galaxies/spectra.asp



We have seen the spectrum of many elements. Those are what we use to determine the wavelength of light when it left the stars.




Then why don't we see the same redshift in stars within our own galaxy?

You may know something I do not; I do not know that fundamental forces in physics are constant they may be variables; the periodic table we have may not be common outside of our solar system. While I have seen spectrums of the elements I don’t know how they are derived. Oxygen and hydrogen are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum referred to as light as far as I am aware.


<< Then why don't we see the same redshift in stars within our own galaxy?>>


I am not aware of what the red shift is in our own galaxy or whether the shift is different for each star including those stars outside of us and whether our own galaxy is speeding away from us. I have never seen the empirical evidence but I expect I would disagree with the conclusions.

 

[sparow]

They probably know a lot more than they tell us but your statements do not convince me. I can see no reason why the periodic table cannot be shifted in the same way light is.

 

[Oafman]

I have never seen the empirical evidence but I expect I would disagree with the conclusions.

Yes I expect you would, regardless of what the evidence showed. Seems little point bothering to even look at it.